FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

NEW ROCHELLE AND ECHO BAY HARBORS,

Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 4 April 1973 NEW ROCHELLE AND ECHO DAY HARBORS, NEW YORK SUMMARY SH5ET

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, New York, N.Y.

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Ant ion: Construction of an anchorage area and access channel in Echo Bay, New York.

3a. Environmental Impacts: Modification of the existing project would enhance the long-term value of Echo Bay as a recreational boating resource. There will be temporary impacts on water quality during construction.

3b. Adverse Environmental Effects: A temporary increase in turbidity during dredging is expected,'but the impact, if any, on fish life should be localized and of short duration. Dredged spoil would be disposed of in the approved dumping grounds in the New York Bight.

4. Alternatives: The following alternative plans were considered:

a. A smaller anchorage area than the one proposed.

b. No modification of existing project.

c. Alternative methods for spoil disposal.

5. Comments Received:

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of Health, Education and Welfare Assistant Secretary Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Sarvice Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Federal Power Commission Regional Engineer Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Coast Guard Atomic Energy Commission Director of Regulation STATE 07 NEW YORK AGENCIES

Department of Environmental Conservation

LOCAL AGENCIES

Westchester County Department of Planning

6. Draft Statement sent to CEQ 28 July 1972 Final Statement sent to CEQ 5 N 3 0 7 I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NEW ROCHELLE AND ECHO BAY HARBORS, NEW YORK

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.01. General. Echo Bay Harbor, shown in Figure 1, is located in the City of Now Rochelle in Westchester County on the north shore of Souv.1, Now York, about 23 miles by water northeast of the Battery, and 9 miles southwest of the Connecticut- New York line. The harbor consists of an inner bay, about 2,800 feat long and 2,000 feet wide, separated into several branches by peninsulas and islands, and an outer bay about 3,800 feet long and 1,800 feet wide. It is bounded by Davenport Neck to the south, the mainland t;o .the west and north, and Pc ■ u Point to the east. • • '

1.02. Author .< :--t Lon. A study of New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, New York was authorized by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Pub44^ Works, House of Representatives on 20 July 1955 and 15 August 6l ,Jto determine the advisability of modification of the existingFScferal navigation project. The proposed work would cost the Federal Government less than :$1,000,000 qualifying it for construction by the Chief of Engineers without specific authorization by Congress. Because modification of the existing project at New Rochelle Harbor is not being considered at this time, the environmental statement refers only to Ecko Bay Harbor.

1.03. Existing Federal Project. The existing Federal project in Echo Bay Harbor, adopted by the River and Harbor Act of 1910 (H. Doc. No. 1115, 60th Cong. 2nd Sess.), provides for:

a. A channel 10 feet deep at mean low water, 100 feet wide, from the 10 foot contour in Echo Bay to the city wharf at Beaufort Point;

b. And a turning basin 10 feet deep at mean low water at the inner extremity of the Federal channel.

An inner channel from the Federal channel td the West Branch, maintained by local interests, provides access to commercial terminals located on the West Branch. The inner channel has a controlling width of about 45 feet, and controlling depths have varied from about 2 feet below mean low water to about 6 feet below mean low water.

1.04. Proposed Action. The considered plan of improvement in Echo Bay Harbor provides for an irregularly shaped 34.8 acre anchorage area in Echo Bay. It would be 7 feet deep at mean low water over the 7.7 acres adjacent to the channel, and 6 feet deep at mean low water over tne remaining 27.1 acres. There would be an access channel between \ Premium Point and Echo Island from t'nc 6-foot contour in Echo Bav to the anchorage area, 6 feet deep at mean low water,and 100 feet wide for a distance of about 0.11 mile. The spoil from this project would probably be disposed of in the approved dumping grounds which are located 7 miles each of Sandy Hook Light in the New York Bight. Alternative disposal methods are discussed in ■section 5.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.01. Economy. The area surrounding Echo Eay Harbfnr is generally urban iti character, mainly residential, with some industrial and commercial activity. The mainland to the west and north of Echo Bay combines all the features of urban development, while Premium Point is entirely residential with private homes, Davenport Neck ‘is’"a residential area with both high rise apartment buildings and single family homes. All of the commercial activity is restricted to the West Branch where a fuel oil terminal and a readi-raix concrete batch process are located.

2.02. Waterborne Commerce. Echo Bay Harbor is primarily a recreational harbor, with waterborne commerce limited to the receipt of distillate fuel oil and construction materials. During the 1971 fiscal year, a total of 65,025 tons of waterborne commerce was shipped via the waterway of which 46,600 tons was construction material, and 18,300 tons was distillate fuel oil.

2.03. Transportation. The area contiguous to New Rochelle and Echo Bay is well served by transportation facilities. Paved streets connect with first class highways, including the northern extension of the New York (New England) Thruway and the Parkway. Other secondary roads, including Boston Post Road (U.S. Route 1), provide ample facilities for vehicular transportation to localities within the beyond adjacent areas. The Penn Central Railroad provides passenger service between Grand Central Station and Pennsylvania Station, New Rochelle with access to many other localities in Westchester County.

2.04. Recreation. Boating is the principal recreational activity in the project area. There are approximately 2,000 pleasure craft permanently based in New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, of which about 1700 have lengths ranging from 14 to 72 feet. Various types of facilities required to serve the pleasure boater's needs exist in the study area. In 1971, there were 2 marinas, a yacht club, a boat yard and a boat livery-marina, located in Echo Bay. Other recreational facilities include: Hudson Park which is a municipal park with picnic areas and a public bathing beach, and numerous private bathing beaches along the shores of Davenport Neck.

2.05. Wo ter Quality. The Interstate E m ! tot ion Commission (ISC) has classified the project 'water as "SB", too.i-e vraers best used for bathing, boating, other secondary-contact recreational activities and transportation. The New Rochelle District water pollution control plant, operated by the County of Westchester,is located on the peninsula formed by the West Branch and the Northeast Branch. The outfall from the sewage treatment plant terminates in the Northeast Branch, west of Clifford Island, approximately 7,500 feet beyond Premium Point. This plant has a capacity to provide primary treatment for 77,200 gallons per day of municipal waste, and serves the City of New Rochelle, the Village of Larchmcnt, the Town of Mamaroneck, and the Village of Pelham Manor. Although there are no known industrial discharges into the project waters, there is some pollution from surface drainage and spillage of petroleum and construction materials into the bay.

2.06. Fish and Wildlife. The harbor is an important waterfowl wintering area, and the intertidal edges and tidal flats contribute to the production of food organisms for both waterfowl and fish. The cove north of Clifford Island is a rich tidal flat. Sea lettuce covers the flat and a good stand of cordgrass (Spartina) rings the cove. An abundance of finfish such as fluke, winter flounder, bluefish, striped bass, weakfish, eel, mackerel, porgy, sea robin and dogfish is generally found throughout the project areas. Lobsters, oysters, clams and crabs are all important shellfish resources that are harvested both privately and commercially. Urban development around Echo Bay and the bay's proximity to New York City allow only moderate numbers of waterfowl to use the area. In the winter, however, as many as 450 ducks and geese can be seen at one time resting and feeding in this cove. In the summer and early autumn, as many as 325 ducks and geese can be sec^there.

2.07. Spoil Disposal Site, The spoil disposal site would be the approved dumping grounds in the New York Bight. High concentrations of heavy metals such as copper, nickel, zinc and lead, the high levels of coliform bacteria are found throughout the waters in this area and adjacent waters. Wildlife is confined mostly to the few species of waterfowl such as scaup, black duck, redhead and canvasback that inhabit the area all year around. Benthic life is restricted to some diseased larger crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters, and a snail number of diseased finfish. Additional information cn the disposal area is in paragraph 3.04.

2.08. Historical, Cultural or Archeological Sites. There are no known historical, cultural or archeological sites in the project area.

2.09. Future Setting. Because of the extensive recreational activities in the Echo Bay area, it is expected that the long-term recreational use of the bay would increase in the future. Clifford Island and the Harrison Islands, located in Echo Toy, hive been recently acquired by the City of Now Rochelle, and the City has plans for developing these islands as a new site for both land and water recreation.

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

3.01. Economy. Improvement of the anchorage area in Echo Bay would provide needed accommodations for approximately 130 additional recreational craft, and would permit safer spacing intervals between existing recreational craft. Also, enlargement of the existing anchorage area would enhance the long-term productivity of recreational boating by allowing an increase in ownership of boats. This would afford an increase in use of the adjacent by boaters residing in nearby Westchester County and New York City. Also this additional revenue would contribute substantially to the sedten; of the regional economy that is dependent upon recreation.

3.02. Fish and Wildlife. Construction of the considered plan of improvement shald have no long-term detrimental effects on water quality if suitable precautions are taken to prevent the creation of deep holes by dredging. However, there would be a temporary increase in turbidity of the water in the immediate vicinity of the improvement works as a result of the dredging, but the impact on marine life would be localized and of short duration. Suspended sedimentary materials could clog the gills of some fish and cause suffocation. It would also lessen the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. However, this impact is minor because of fish motility which would permit temporary migration to other areas outside of the immediate dredging site. The removal of bottom materials may have an adverse effect on larger fish in the ecological chain that depend on bottom fauna as a source of nutrients. The removal of bottom materials would have an adverse effect on some benthic organisms. Since there is some commercial shellfish harvesting in the area, the loss of some benthos could offset this economic resource . However, most benthic organisms can reestablish themselves within 2 years.

3*03. Recreation. Implementing the project would benefit sport fishing by permitting more anglers to use fishing boats because of accessibility to many deepwater fishing areas. Enlargement of the anchorage area would increase the number of craft in the area.

3.04. Spoil Disposal. Disposal of dredged spoil in the New York Bight would add to the accumulation of such materials from similar works throughout the region. Studies of the effects of watte disposal in New York Bight have been made by Various agencies. A composite report on these findings was prepared by the Office of Environmental Sciences, Smithsonian Institution. A summary of their report on the effects of spoil disposal are as follows:

a. Tnere is dimunition of benthic species in spoil disposal areas. b. High concentrations of heavy metals such as copper, nickel, zinc and lead, greatly exceeding those in uncontaminated areas.

c. Benthic destruction due to presence of petroleum products.

d. Presence of high levels of coliform bacteria.

e. Movement of metals and coliform bacteria to areas beyond the actual sites of disposal.

f. "any diseased larger crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters, but a small number of diseased finfish.

Studies conducted by the State University of New York at Stony, Brook, and the National Narine Fisheries Service have provided valuable In­ formation regarding the effects of ocean disposal however, these investigations have been limited in scope. This coupled with the long history of waste disposal and lack of baseline data makes it difficult to evaluate the basic mechanisms by which ecological changes may be occurring in the marine environment of the New York Bight. The extent of such changes will not be fully understood until all available information has been computed and if necessary provide for the develop­ ment of additional studies to supply the data needed to arrive at a conclusive report of the effects of open waste disposal.

3.05. Five bottom samples, locations shown in Figure 1, were taken from Echo Bay. A chemical analysis of the material, as shown in Table I, compares the results with the pollution levels adopted by EPA for classification of materials to be disposed of at sea. h. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED

•U.01. Fish and Wildlife. The creation of temporary turbidity during the dredging operation would cause some casualties to local marine life, but the effect is of a temporary nature and should be short-lived. The disruption of several acres of bottom substrata would upset the ecological food chain to some extent and would disrupt the natural habitat of benthic organisms. However, it has been observed from similar works in the area that these organisms do reestablish themselves in a 2-year period. The commercial shellfish fisheries may encounter some losses. If the losses are ecologically or economically significant, then consideration would be given to temporarily transporting the shellfish to other adjacent areas until the dredging is completed.

k.02. Spoil Disposal. Additional unavoidable impacts are those associated with continued disposal of dredged spoil material in the New York Bight, the effects of which were discussed in pararraph '5 o L TABLE 1 DREDGED SPOIL ANALYSIS

(Locations of Sample Points are noted in Figure 1)

Parameters Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample EPA Percent by weight #1 #2 #3 #4 # 5 Criterium

Volatile Solids 10.65 15.77 12.30 9.62 9.24 6.0

Chemical Oxygen Demand 14.62 19.32 13.65 12.40 4.73 5.0

Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.311 0.391 0.519 0.246 0.260 0.10

Oil and Grease 1.78 1.95 0.40 0.30 0.44 0.15

Mercury 0 0 670xl0"7 559xl0-7 800x10”7 lOOCxlO-7

Lead 827xl0-4 1234xl0’4 224xl0”4 0 121xl0-4 130xl0~4 -4 Z i \c 505xl0"4 700xl0”4 393xl0~4 56xl0~4 134xl0“4 50x10 5. ALTERNATIVES TO Tiff! FKOPOSED ACTION

5.01. General. The proposed modifications to the existing Federal navigation project are the result of analyses to determine the. most economic and L. official plan. An alternative plan oi* decreasing the size of the considered anchorage area is economically justified, but docs not: maximize net benefits. Selection of this economically justified plan of improvement would have similar environmontal effect as the proposed plan.

5.02. No-Project. A further alternative to the proposed action is not to undertake the project and thereby forego the net annual benefits which exceed the annual charges by about $90,030. Also, there would be a cutback the number of recreational craft utilizing the area. Some of these boats would probably seek adjacent areas in Long Island Sound, thereby causing congestion. The sector of the regional economy which is dependent on revenue from recreational boating would be expected to encounter soma losses. In addition, there would be problems of unemploymant and hardships for people in the related industries. The no-project alternative is believed to have more significant adverse effects than the proposed plan.

5.03. Spoil Disposal. Information on disposal alternatives is given in the following paragraphs.

5.04. Aerobic stabilization. This method would be similar to secondary treatment of organic sewage although dredged spoil could not be treated in municipal plants. Specialized plants designed to treat dredged spoil would have to be constructed. Because dredged spoil contains heavy toxic metals and petroleum residues unlike sewage, research is required to make this a viable alternative. Although this method of disposal would eliminate the adverse effects associated with ocean disposal, it would create adverse effects of its own. The liquid effluent from this process would require treatment to purify it to acceptable standards for discharge. The cost of this method of disposal, lack of research available, and the adverse environmental effects militate against the practicability of this method of waste disposal at the present time.

5.05. Disposal in leveed areas in open waters. This alternative would reduce the impact of turbidity and sedimentation resulting from current practices cf ocean disposal. The Corps of Engineers is studying the feasibility of a 6,000- foot by 8,030-foot diked containment area in Lower New York Eay offshore of Staten Island. The facility would have a capacity to permit disposal of a total of 80,000,030 cubic yards of waste material consisting of 40,000,000 cubic yards or 10 yards of Federal spoil, 25,030,000 cubic yards or 10 years of private and municipal spoil and 15,000,000 cubic yards of misceallenous materials. Benefits of this proposal are: much of the material removed to create the necessary volume could be used in various beach erosion and hurricane protection works within economical distances of the sites; alleviation of the ocean dumping problen; and possible creation of a new recreational resource. 5.0o. High temperature incineration. This method would entail incinerating the spoil into aa inert ash, safe for land disposal. To accomplish this, a high-range furnace and extra handling of the materials would be needed. Incineration would contribute to air pollution and discharge of equipment cooling water would cause thermal pollution, possibly damaging fish and valuable fish habitats. Although incineration would eliminate the adverse effects of ocean waste disposal, it would have its own particular adverse effects and is not sufficiently advanced to warrant its adoption at the present time.

5.07. Vacuum filtration. Since the presence of organic materials makes the spoil somewhat similar to domestic sewage, vacuum filters for initial dewatering appears feasible. In this manner the solids could be separated out for eventual inland disposal and the liquid effluent left to be treated by other processes. Although vacuum filtration would eliminate the adverse effects of ocean waste disposal, it would create other adverse effects. The liquid effluent would probably require extensive treatment to purify it to acceptable standards for discharges, and the solid waste would pose a problem in disposal unless the solids are usuable for landfill material. Further research would be needed to make this a possible viable alternative.

5.08. Upland disposal of material. An area considered upland disposal was the cove north of Clifford Island. However, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revealed that the cove served as a valuable wildlife habitat and therefore no further investigations were made regarding the use of this site for spoil disposal. Other investigations the area indicated that there were no suitable sites for upland disposal available.

5.09. Drying of dredged spoil and using it as landfill or beach fill. The quality of the dredged spoil as a whole is not suitable for such uses.

5.10. Disposal at Eaton's Neck in Long Island Sound. Open water disposal at Eaton's Neck is prohibited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the jurisdiction of Section 21(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

5.11. Disposal of materials farther out to sea. This would prevent the deposition of new wastes on presently used disposal areas, but would also possibly create similar problems in new areas, as well as increase the cost of project maintenance by the Federal Government. The national Marine Fisheries Service, in its study of the New York Bight, expressed the belief that it would be imprudent to shift ocean dumping further offshore unless it be done with considerable caution. Data to be developed in current and imminent studies mentioned in the f*o3 l e v '*"***• rh —"r^r^ 1"°^ to i,rw o* ** in vuC'C dijjpojr.-I nraetlcrs. 5.11. Disposal in Ouvon Point area. Local industrial concerns of Jersey City, New Jersey, have a tentative scheme for sewage and other waste disposal sites. When the plans are more definite the Corps would coordinate with the various local concerns to seek alternative sites for the deposition of dredged spoil.

5.12. Numerous studies for the purpose of developing alternatives to ocean Humping are being conducted by various agencies. The Corps of Engineers' study of a 10-year capacity disposal area was cited in paragraph 5.05. Other studies pertinent to waste disposal practices in the New York Bight are to be conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Waterways Experiment Station of the Corps of Engineers, the City of New York, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. -

G. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.

6.01. General. The proposed action would make a relatively minor change in the characteristics of the harbor by enlarging the existing anchorage area. However, the work would not have any significant or lasting impact on the long term aquatic uses of the harbor by existing local marine life. The project serves to preserve the long-term productivity of the harbor as a recreational resource but does not preclude any future alternative plans for use of the bay.

6.02. The adverse effects of ocean disposal have been discussed. Ocean disposal is clearly degrading the marine environment and affecting the biological productivity of the site. The recovery of these areas will be slow and it may require decades for them to return to their former productivity.

7. ANY IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED

7.01. General. As a result of maintenance dredging, several acres of bottom substrate would be removed and associated bottom fauna which are a food source for higher forms of life is the aquatic environment would be lost. This loss is retrievable to some extent, however, because upon completion of dredging, normal siltation and reintroduction of aquatic life may be reestablished. The labor funds and useful life of equipment used for the proposed action are an irretrievable commitment of economic resources.

7.02. The disposal of dredged spoil in the ocean may be an irreversible commitment of resources to the extent that some of ,the spoil could be treated to remove toxic materials and eventually used for landfill. 8. COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

8.01 Public Participation. A public hearing was held by the District Engineer at New Ac. belle, New York, on 28 February 1967 to obtain the views and desires of local interests. The hearing was attended by 63 people. A public meeting sponsored by local interests was held at New Rochelle, New York, on 19 Hay 1970 to acquaint local interests with the considered plan of improvement, and to obtain their views and comments. Thirty-one people were in attendance. On both occasions, the environmental aspects of the proposed action were thoroughly discussed and there was no known opposition.

8.02. Government Agencies. The draft environmental statement was sent to the following governmental agencies requesting their views and comments. Their comments are summarized below and copies of the replies arc attached to the statement.

(1) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION AND WELFARE

Comment: Consideration should be given to providing adequate on-shore sanitary facilities to handle the increased recreational population.

Response: The project would increase the number of moorings in Echo Bay by approximately 15 percent. Existing sanitary facilities at the municipal marina and yacht clubs should be sufficient.

(2) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.

Comment: Recommended that no deep holes be dug during the dredging operation.

Response: Every precaution possible would be taken to avoid this.

Comment: Recommended that no dredged material from the Lower Harbor be placed on Hunter Island, its marsh or tidal flat, the Goose Islands or Hog Island; and that no spoil from the project be deposited in the cave north of Clifford Island.

Response: It is expected that all dredged wastes from the project vauld be deposited in the mud dumping grounds in the New York Bight. However, further analysis would be made by local interests and the Corps regarding available upland sites prior to project implementation. If there should be a change in the spoil- disposal site, a revised EIS would be issued accordingly.

(3) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

Comment: Expressed opposition to open water disposal of dredged spoil material. Response : The undersirability of open water disposal is acknowledged. Section 5 was revised in the final statement to include other alternatives for disposal of dredged spoil.

Comment: Consideration should be given to upland disposal. ;

Response: The comment was concurred with in paragraph 5.08 of the final statement.

(4) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Comment: Uryec thaL every precaution be taken to minimize release of spoil contaminates during dredging.

Response: Presently the Corps is investigating the feasibility■, of using silt nets to confine turbidity. If the results of the studies indicate the practicality of using these devices then this procedure would be adopted. However, experience from similar works in the area does not warrant special concern for turbidity.

(5) NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Comment: Expressed concern about the toxicity of the spoil material.

Response: Paragraph 3.05 of the final environmental statement has been revised to incorporate the results of the chemical spoil analysis tests.

(6) The following agencies have no comments:

Coast Guard, DOT Federal Aviation Administration, DOT Atomic Energy Commission Federal Power Commission Soil Conservation Service, DA Westchester County Department of Planning.

8.03. Citizens Groups. There are no known environmental conflicts or issues raised by any citizens or conservation grouns.

DEPART WENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE

OF FI Cl O! H U . £1 CUCIAKY

V/ASH IN G TO N , D C . JOiOl

Hr. Glenn H. Von Gunton Chief, Engineerin'' hi vision Depart non. of the. Army Ecu’ York Ijstrict, Corps of Lr.gineei s New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr. Von Gun ten:

As requested in your letter of January 12, 1971, to the Commissioner, Environment'll Control Administration, we have reviewed the draft, environmental statement regarding navigation improvements at New Rochelle and Echo Ray Harbors, New York.

II does not appear that this project: would have any detrimental effect on environmental health if construction is carried out as described in the statement.

The statement reveals that completion of the enlargement of the anchorage area will allow an increase in the use of Long Island Sound by recreational boaters. Consideration should be given to providing adequate on-shore sanitary facilities to handle the increased recreational population.

Sinc^rt'iN ,

Assistant Seerc iiC iy m^ y for Health e.-^d Scientific Affairs * UNITED STATES DEIV.RTNT:'iTf OF TTIE INTERIOR FISH AND V'lLDLIFi: SERVICE DURL'AU OF Of-OI 11 nSHLPIES AND WILDLIFE u. b. ori icr. and rmiKTi'pin.c; DOS! ON. MAf.OACHUbf. JTS 02100

'Mtl 2 ij/j

District Engineer New York District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2G Federal Plaza New York, Now Y'ork.. 10007

Dear Sir:

This is in response to Mr. Von Gunten’s January 12, 1971 letter to Mr. Abel son requesting comments on your environmental statement on the navigation improvements under consideration for New Kochellu and Echo Day Harbors, Now Y'ork.

Tho statement is limited to a discussion of considered improvements for Echo Day Harbor. Your discussion relative to the impact that the Echo Bay improvements v.ould have on the fish and wildlife resources of the area is consistent with the conclusions of our conservation and develop­ ment report or. tho project, dated March 20, 1970. Wo have no further comments to offcrl

At such time as your statement in final form reaches the Secretary of the Interior for comments, we undoubtedly will be called on to respond. Experience has shown that the time allowed for such response may bo as little as three to four tiays. If your policies and procedures will per­ mit, we would appreciate receiving a draft of your statement as it is sent up through channels. This would givd us lead time in which to pre­ pare a more meaningful input to the Secretary's comments.

Sincerely yours,

Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR FISH AND W ILDLin: SFNVICF duke.au or n-rora rii'Hi.mai and wildlife

u. g. p o s t o r n c i: a n d c o u n t h o u g i: H0G10N. MAGSACHHGi 1 tG 02109

March 20, 1070

District Engineer New York District p, S. Army Corps of Engineers 2G Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Sir:

Tills is our conservation and development report on the navigation improvements being planned for New Kochclle and Echo May Harbors, Westchester County, New York. The study concerning these improvements is being made under the authority of resolutions of the House Committee on Public. Works adopted on duly 20, 1955 and August ID, 1961. This report v.as prepared under the 'authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (<58 Slat. -101, as amended; 1C U.D.C. 661-GGG inc,), jn cooperation with the New York State Conservation Department's Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Marine and Coastal Resources. It has the concurrence of these* agencies as indicated by letters dated January DO, 1970 and January 8, 1970, respectively. It has also been coordinated with and represents the views of the bureau of Commercial Fisheries!

Our pieliminary report on this project, dated Januaiy 10, 1962, was super­ seded by our preliminary report of March 22, 1967.

We understand that in New Kochclle Harbor you are considering extending the existing eight, feet deep by 100 feet wide Federal channel at "Lower Harbor" J.n a northeasterly direction about l,60u feet to the vicinity of the Glen island bridge.

We understand further thet in Echo Day Harbor you are considering widening the rot tter.'i hal f of the exi st ing It) feet deep by 100 foot wide* channel to about 17G feet vide; constructing a new chumiel 10 feet deep by about 100 feet wide which would ext'-nd about 1 ,'UjU feet from the existing turning basin into 'NVfSt lira nth"; dr-edging an anchorage area southeast of Clifford Island to six feet below moan low water; and constructing a breakwater MK) to 1 ,:>U0 feet lo ng i >1 a sou t i. t •*> f-1 crl y direction off Premium Point.

V.'o understand 11.at spoil from 11..* < huunol ■•m k I unchoiuge dredging operations vj.ll be deposited at the fiovn'M.i. i.t-approvr d

As stated in our report of March 22, 1907 the "lower Harbor" is a valuable wintering urea for v.atorr.vwl. l obsters are another important resource of the harbor. The harbor's intartld;1 zone contains food organisms for fish and water fowl. Much uiu polled Marine edge with areas of salt marsh is found in the vicinity of the project area. The previous report also stated that the channel devel op ..’lit would jr.p;ovo*the finfisli resource, but that we would be seriously concerned about any plan?; lor spoil disposal on water.1; or marshes near tne considered pioject, V.'o had, however, no objection to the deposition of the spoil on Government-approved dumping grounds in hong Island Sound. These statenunts concerning New Itochelle Harbor are reaffirmed on the basis of our most recent investigation.

In dredging "Lower Harbor" care should be taken so as not to create deep holes. Such holes provide catch basins for harbor pollutants and usually contain o':ygen-dcficient waters which cannot support any important marine organisms. because of their valuable fish add wildlife habitats, no spoil material, should be placed on nearby Hunter Island, its adjacent marsh, or its tidal flat. For the same reason spoil should not be placed on the Goose Islands or Hog Island, east and south of the planned channel.

Concerning navigation improvements for Fcho Hay HarborJ our March 22, 1967 report restated conclusions reached in our earlier report. The present investigation has again shown that (1) Heho ‘Hay is an important area for wintering waterfowl, (2) the channel to "West branch" will aid sport fishing, (3) although no provision for sport fishing from the breakwater planned at Premium Point is being considered at this time, v.e would question the use of public funds to include this additional feature in the breakwater design unless unrestricted fisherman access to the structure is provided, and (4) the place of spoil disposal is of m j o r concern to us.

Our present i r.vcsti gat ion of Echo Buy Harbor inc l uded r eview of the plans to complete a d enlargement and dredge an anchorage urea in the harbor. As in the case with the New Rochelle harbor dredging, no deep holes should be io-i.t an a. j.-.-al. of careless dredging operations in the Echo Hay Channel and anchorag'*. No .spoil from the Echo hay ;uca should he deposited in the cove north of Clifford Island. The only significant lumbers of waterfowl in Echo Hay are found in this 20-aero cove. The cove is actually a ricli tidal flat. Sea let tuce.' covers the flat and a pood stand of cordgrass (Spa rt 1 r.a) rings tlu; cove. Urban development around Echo Hay and the bay’s nearness to New York City allows only moderate numbers of waterfowl to use the area. In the winter, however, as many as *1 f>t) ducks and geese can be seen at one time res.tint; and feeding in this cove. The spades present include hooded merganser, balripute, black duck, mallard, and Canada goose. In the summer and early autumn as many as 32C» ducks and geese can bo seen there.

We have no objection to the deposition of spoil on a Government-approved dumping {.round in Long Island Sound.

W'e recommend:

1. That no deep holes be dug in the course of dredging channels and anchorage area.

, 2. That no dredged material from "Lower Harbor" be placed,on Hunter Island, its marsh or tidal flat, the Goose Islands, or Hog Island.

3. That spoil from project work in Echo Hay not be depo.sited in the cove north of Clifford Island.

This Bureau requests that it be kept informed of your progress in this study and of any changes in current plans, so that another report can bo prepared, if necessary.

Sincerely yours,

Acting Hcgional Director ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza New York, N,Y. 10007

October 1, 1971

Mr. F. R. Pagano Chief, Engineering Division New York District Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Re: Environmental Impact Statement Review - New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, New York

Dear Mr. Pagano:

This office has reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Environmental Protection Agency is against open water disposal of dredged spoil naterial, especially if it may be polluted. V.Tiile the data submitted for the particular spoil re­ sulting from this project does not appear to be extremely pollu­ ted, we feel that further discussion should be given to the alter­ natives to open water disposal, particularly upland disposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald M. Hansler, P.E. Regional Administrator U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION - Water Resources Division Federal Building 14 Elm Street Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930

September 21, 1971

District Engineer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District 2 6 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Sir:

Reference is made to your letter of August 26, 1971, requesting our review and comments on the draft environmental statement prepared for the pro­ posed New Rochelle and Echo Bay navigation improvement projects, New York. Since modification of the New Rochelle Harbor is not being recom­ mended at this time, the statement considers only navigation improvements at Echo Bay Harbor.

Pursuant to Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the draft statement adequately covers the project and its impact on natural resources of the area. While we have no objections to the project, we urge that every precaution be taken to minimize release of spoil con­ taminates during the dredging phase of the project.

Please provide us with a copy of the statement when it is submitted through channels to the Council on Environmental Quality.

Sincerely yours,

Russell T. Norris Regional Director S i at c o r N e w Y o f : k

OCI'ARTM rN T OF

E N VI R O f J M L. N T A L C O t j S f. O VAT IOIJ

A l b a n y

March 24, 1971

Dear Colonel Barnett:

This is in regard lo the environmental impact, statement for the New Rochelle and licho Bay Harbor, New York project.

We have reviewed the statement and feel that it adequately describes the proposed work. Our only concern is the disposal area for the dredged spoil material which may he highly toxic in regard to its environmental effects. We, therefore, would appreciate being consulted when final spoil disposal site selection is made. Thank you for this opportunity to review the statement. Sincerely,

Colonel James W. Barnett District engineer Department of the Army N. Y. District Corps of engineers 26 Federal Plata New York, New York IUD'17 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Address reply to: COMMANDER(oan) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Third Coast Guard D stnu Governors Island New York. N Y. 10001 (212) 264-8736

jjujzi isn •From; Commander, Third Coast Guard District To: District Engineer Corps of Engineers, New York District

Subj; Review of environmental statement, New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors Projects

Ref: (a) Chief," Engineering Division, New York District Corps of Engineers ltr NANEN-Br 12 January 1971

1. The proposed environmental statement on the improvement projects for New Rochelle and Echo Harbors has been reviewed. By letter dated 20 March 1970, the District Commander provided information on the requirements for changes in aids to navigation for these projects.

2. There are no other significant environmental impacts related to Coast Guard mission areas.

LELAN2 By ^direction UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C. 20545

JAN t 6 13/1

Mr, Glenn II, Von Gunten Chief, Engineering Division New York District, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr, Von Gunten:

This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1971 to

Mr. J. J, DiNunno, concerning navigation improvements under consideration for New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, New York,

We have reviewed the material and have no comments to make.

Sincerely,

' Harold L. Price ^Director of Regulation F e d e r a l P o w e r C o m m i s s i o n REGIONAL OFMCE 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

February 10, 1971

Mr. Glenn H. Von Gunten Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army New York. District Corps of Engineers 2o Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

This is in response to your letter of January 12,

1971, requesting our views and comments concerning the environmental statement regarding the Navigation Project

for New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, New York. A

review of this project was authorized by resolutions

adopted by the Committee on Public Works, House of Rep­

resentatives on July 29, 1955 and August 15, 196l, to

determine the advisability of modification of the exist­

ing Federal Navigation projects.

Our review of the statement indicates that the new

construction will have no adverse effects on environmen­

tal matters of concern to the Federal Power Commission.

Sincerely,

PAUL II. SHORE Regional Engineer UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE YOU'EasY~W7ii er YSf Fee f “ TTy Fac uije, Ne~Y6r"k_T3?IT)

February 11, 1971

Mi’. Glenn H. Von Gunten Cliief, Engineering Division Department of the Army New York District, Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

Dear M r. Von Gunten:

We have reviewed the environmental statement regarding the proposed work for New Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors, New York, transmitted with your letter of 12 January 1971.

We have no comments to offer on the statement.

Sincerely yours,

A. C, Addison State Conservationist c h a i r m a n v ic e c h a i r m a n

P. M. FR EEM A N BEDFORD WARREN T. LINDQUIST n o r t h c a s t l e

CO W AR D M. G IB B S p e e a s k i l l MRS. T H O M A S M. W A L L E R . B l " i o « o J. BOYD HENSON WHITE PLAINS E D W A R D J. M O R TO LA NEW ROCHtl.lt

E D W A R D J D E L E H A N T Y E* o f f i c i o C H A R L E S E. P O U N D E* o f f i c i o COMR OF PURI 1C WUNKi COMR. OF PARAS. RCCREATION B CONSERVATION WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

PETER Q. ESCHWEILER. A I P. 910 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING WHITE PLAINS. N. Y. 10601 914 WH itl P l a n s 91300 COMMISSIONER

JOSEPH R. P0TEN2A. A.I P. CHIEF PLANNER

March 9, 1971

Mr. Glenn K. Von Gunten Chief of the Engineering Division Department of the Army- New York District Corps of Engineers 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 1 0 0 0 7

Dear Mr. Von Gunten:

As requested in your letter dated January 12, 1971i the Westchester County Depart­ ment of Planning has reviewed the proposed improvements to New Rochelle and Echo Bay Base Harbors ih Westchester County with regard to their environmental impact. Based on our knowledge of the area and the comments made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, this project does not appear to have adverse environmental impact provided the following conditions concerning dredging operations and the ultimate disposal of zhe dredged materials are observed:

1. that no deep holes be dug in the course of dredging channels and anchorage areas;

2. that no dredged materials from the "lower harbor" be placed on Hunter Island, its marsh or title flat, Goose Island, or Hog Island;

3. that spoil from project work in Echo Bay not be deposited in the cove north of Clifford Island;

Our Department has been pleased to cooperate with your agency in the review of this eject as it has progressed end commends you for the thoroughness with which all related far tor's, particularly environmental ones, effected by this proposal have le.n in/estigated.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph R. Potenza Chief Planner